sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bohemia, Czech, Czech lands, Moravian Slovakia

DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.2Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, Hungarian J. Hungarian Geographical Geographical Bulletin Bulletin 65 65 2016 (2016) (1) (1) 15–25. 15–25.15

Regional identities of Czech historical lands

Antonín VAISHAR and Jana ZAPLETALOVÁ1

Abstract

Bohemia and are historical lands, which constitute Czechia (together with a small part of ) since the 10th century. Two entirely diff erent sett lement systems can be identifi ed in Czechia: the centralistic Bohemian sett lement system surrounded by a ring of mountains, and the transitional and polycentric Moravian sett lement system. The two lands were physically divided by a border forest. Although they have belonged always to the same state, their autonomy was relatively high until the formation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. In 1948, a new administrative division was introduced, which did not respect the border between the two lands. and Moravia kept their importance as diff erent cultural units only. The main research question addressed in this paper is how the Bohemian and Moravian identities are perceived by the people today and whether it makes any sense to consider the historical lands seriously when rethinking the idea of the of .

Keywords: regional identity, administrative division, historical lands, Bohemia, Moravia,

Introduction decision making power is dominated by the large ones. Conversely, big countries fear The idea of -state was introduced as a high participation of small countries in the result of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Its decision-making process, although they pro- purpose was to change the old dynastic sys- vide the majority of resources for EU level tem into a new territorial one. Nationalism, programmes. The solution could be a unifi ed developing in the subsequent two centuries, Europe divided into historically grounded became the main ideology all over Europe. regions, which can be more comparable in Many times, the idea was abused for provok- size. Applegate, C. (1999) writes: Europe has ing wars and confl icts. In (western) Europe, always been and remains very much a the confl icts among nation-states were over- of regional identities. come by creating the , which Keating, M. (1998) explains that regions governed relations between two traditional are no longer confi ned with the borders of enemies: and France among other their nation-states but have become actors in things. Recently, the power has shift ed from European and international politics, and they the level of nation-states to multinational cor- fi nd themselves increasingly in competition porations and banks. In 2010, Herman van with each other. In this way regional identity Rompuy, president of the European Council, has been increasingly identifi ed in the EU´s declared that the idea of nation-states is over. cohesion policy as an important element for European integration is the important regional development (Paasi, A. 2009). challenge in this process. Of course, regional identity is subject to The problem of nation-states in Europe a long term development process. Nation- consists of – among other things – the fact states are deeply ingrained in people’s that the Union is formed by countries of very minds. Nationalism is also a tempting card diff erent size. Small countries fear that the in the hands of populist politicians. The fi rst

1 Institute of Geonics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Department of Environmental Geography, Drobného 28, 602 00 , Czech Republic. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] 16 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

att empts to give some political power to the ants are proud to be part of the and have European regions can be traced back to the a strong territorial connection. In addition, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and the establish- authors’ idea on regional solidarity likely ment of the Council of Regions one year later. acting as a factor of regional identity is also Painter, J. (2002) pointed out that the idea is relevant for our case study. more top-down than bott om-up and, thus, it The concept of identity has been used is a question whether it will resonate in the since the 1980s – regional identity being regions themselves. Paasi, A. (2001) expressed a special manifestation thereof (Paasi, A. the idea that European regions are the results 2003). The author defi nes regional identity of regionalization processes more than his- as a relationship between a group of people torical and cultural products. Thus, the ques- and the bounding region. Regional identity tion arises whether regions, which are mostly is understood as an abstraction that can be embedded in the history, are perceived as rel- used to analyse links between social actors evant entities by their inhabitants. and the process of institutionalisation (Paasi, Czechia consists of two historical lands: A. 2002). According to Chromý, P. and Janů, Bohemia and Moravia. In the course of his- H. (2003) a particular territory with the specifi c tory, small and discontinuous parts of Silesia social, economic or developmental conditions were connected with the territory of the state. (specifi c historical development) serve as a base Since the administrative autonomy of the his- for forming the territorial/regional identity. Such torical lands was gradually degrading, they regions are neither economic nor administra- have not created any administrative unit tive constructs but rather realistic territorial neither their borders have been kept within units embedded in the mental memory of the borders of lower level units (regions, dis- people. As Odehnal, J. and Šerý, M. (2012) tricts, communes). note, regional identity is closely related to re- On the other hand, it seems that cultural gional borders. These boundaries play an impor- characteristics and diff erences have survived. tant role in shaping the regional identity because The question is whether the borders between they help to defi ne the region, thus helping peo- these historical lands are kept in the mind of ple to perceive “their” region. Toušek, V. et al. people and whether this historical memory (1991) dealt with the problem of boundaries can be used to create regional and local iden- between the Czech historical lands just aft er tities and, thus, enhance regional develop- the political change. ment and cohesion in general. The problem of borders and borderlands is relatively frequent in the contemporary European geography. The research is focused The identity of European regions mostly on the consequences of the elimina- tion of borders within the framework of Regional identity relates to the concept of European integration and later within the us – and the others (see e.g. Neumann, I.B. Schengen zone. In the mainstream literature 1999). According to Paasi, A. (1986), region- the emphasis oft en lie on the changes from al identity could be divided into two parts: physical barriers to a psychological or mental subjective (images of the region held by its one (e.g. Newman, D. 2006 and many oth- inhabitants and those living outside of the ers). As Lundén, T. and Zalamans, D. (2001) region) and objective (based on physical or pointed out there has been a geographical re- economic indicators). According to Sedlacek, focusing of the border away from the level of the S. et al. (2009), regional identity relates to re- State down to internal regions, municipalities gional consciousness and regional solidarity: and neighbourhoods. Regional solidarity is an aspect functioning as a Which territorial units come into account landmark of a particular region, which implies to understand Europe as a unity of regions? a specifi c relationship with the region. Inhabit- Such units should be large enough to have Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25. 17

related economic and political powers, they Jeseník district based on the concept of men- should be more or less comparable in size tal maps. They stated that regional identity and should have some historically rooted is relatively weak. However, it is necessary identity. Such historical regions exist in all to note that the original population of the larger (West) European countries (Länder Jeseník area was almost completely replaced in Germany, Provinces historiques in France, aft er World War II; therefore, its regional Comuninades autónomas in Spain, Regioni in identity became weakened in general. On the Italy, Regions in England, etc.). The bounda- other hand, it is also important to emphasise ries of some of them are clear and unchanged that the land’s identity is only a part of the during centuries; in other cases, their size was regional identity. slightly changed in the past. Nevertheless, In the 1991 population census, it was pos- also in the western part of Europe, problems sible to declare the Moravian and Silesian of regional identity occur as e.g. Fichtner, U. ethnic background besides the Czech nation- (2006) shows on the example of the Southern ality. At that time, about 1.3 million inhabit- Upper Rhine Valley. ants declared the Moravian nationality (13% The situation in Central and Eastern of the population). It was partly connected Europe is more complicated. Boundaries of with the eff orts of some Moravian micro- individual states oft en changed in the his- regions to be connected with Moravian dis- tory; historical lands were oft en divided by tricts or regions and with the political am- diff erent countries. The second problem is bitions of some Moravian politicians. In the connected with the fact that many countries 2001 census, only 400,000 people declared in this part of Europe have gained (or re- the Moravian ethnicity (3.7% of the popu- gained) political independence only a short lation). The issue of some administrative time ago. These countries are much more changes was not on the agenda at that time. anchored in the perception of nation-states. In the 2011 census, answers to questions Nevertheless, also in these countries, histori- about ethnicity and religiosity were volun- cal regions do exist and could be identifi ed. tary. As a consequence, about a quarter of Aft er the fall of communism, many ques- the respondents did not replay to that ques- tions, which were tabooed in the past, were tion. Yet, the number of “” (in the put forward including the problem of eth- English, and namely in the US literature, the nicity. In the 1991 Czech population census, term Moravian is connected more with the respondents were offered to declare the affi liation to the which Moravian or Silesian nationality. About 1.4 originated from the Unitas Fratrum Church) million inhabitants of the Czech Republic identi- increased to 522,000 (5.0%). The main re- fi ed themselves as Moravian or Silesian national- search question addressed in this paper is ity, which was not allowed before. They expressed how the Bohemian and Moravian identities their awareness of belonging to the historical prov- are perceived by the people and whether it inces of Moravia and Silesia and, thus, belonging makes any sense to consider the historical to the Czech nation. Thus, a new social division lands seriously when rethinking the idea of has developed in the ethnically nearly homoge- the Europe of regions. neous environment of the Czech Republic, which constitutes a potential threat for the further split- ting of the State (Daněk, P. 1993). It is probably Bohemian-Moravian relations, diff erences the most important reason why politicians and perceptions refuse a return to the original division of the country based on the historical lands. Bohemia and Moravia are historical lands, Šerý, M. and Šimáček, P. (2012) analysed which constitute Czechia since the 10th cen- the boundaries of regional identity on the ex- tury. The two lands used to be physically di- ample of the Moravian-Silesian divide in the vided by a border forest. On the one hand, 18 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

since the eclipse of the Great Moravia Empire After 1989, some political parties and Moravia has always been peripheral in rela- movements focusing on the Moravian issue tion to Bohemia (due to multiple reasons and arose. The Movement for Self-Governing conditioned by supranational culture repre- Democracy – Association for Moravia and sented by the ). Neverthe- Silesia was the most successful among them. less, the subordination of Moravia has never Moravian ethno-regional parties mostly sup- been absolute (Šedo, J. 2002). On the other ported the idea of the European integration hand, Moravia has always been an important and the Europe of Regions – oft en in con- hinterland for Bohemia and its peripherality trast with some leading nationwide parties provided a good basis to keep some tradi- like the Civic Democratic Party (Mareš, M. tional culture. 2002). The country was newly divided into In spite of having always been parts of 12 administrative regions, which did not re- the same state, the two lands had relatively spect the historical borders and did retain great autonomy until the formation of the any historical identity (Figure 2). Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. In the pe- The issue of Moravian autonomy was riod between 1918 and 1938, Bohemia and gradually replaced by other questions. In Moravia (later Moravia-Silesia) were two general the low level of political interest of of the four main administrative units of the people (expressed by extremely low partici- state, and be- pation of people in elections; e.g. in 2014 in ing the other ones (Figure 1). Only in 1948, a the last elections to the European Parliament new administrative division was introduced, the turnout rate was only 18.2%) and re-ori- which did not respect the border between the entation towards consumption could be the two lands. Bohemia and Moravia always kept main reasons. A certain resignation to region- their importance as diff erent cultural units al issues in relation to social problems (eco- whereas the role of Silesia became less clear. nomic crisis, unemployment, low incomes, The historical lands of Bohemia and Moravia are and poverty) could also be mentioned. two regions whose existence the recognise Are there some measurable cultural or without a question, while Silesia is in a weaker social indicators of diff erences between the position and gains only two-thirds of the recogni- two lands? Investigating the social capital in tion of the other two historical lands (Siwek, T. Czechia, Pileček, J. and Jančák, V. (2010) talk and Bogdová, K. 2007). about the polarisation between Bohemia and

Fig. 1. Lands of the First Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938. (Drawn by J. Pokorná.) Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25. 19

Fig. 2. A comparison of historical lands and the present administrative division of the Czech Republic. (Drawn by J. Pokorná.)

Moravia (at a district level) – highlighting the low competitiveness of Moravian centres the diffi culties of measuring. The cultural is probably the main reason for Moravian identity of Moravians is oft en refl ected in backwardness. Moravia (being more rural) the establishment of clubs focusing on the was more able to keep some ethnographical promotion of Moravia as a historical territory traditions. It is divided among several eth- with the eff ort to keep or renew Moravian nographical regions whereas Bohemia is eth- identity. There are 12 such clubs registered nographically more or less homogeneous an by the Ministry of Interior. exception is being Chodsko in the Domažlice If Moravia is a periphery of the Czech state, district (see Siwek, T. 2012). is the Czech part of Silesia a periphery of the Differences are also emphasised in the periphery? Siwek, T. (2006) answers the ques- presentations of individual regions in the tion positively reasoning with the remote media – which has to do with the image of geographical position, major economic prob- individual regions. Sucháček, J. et al. (2013) lems (transition from heavy industry) and show that Moravian (NUTS 3) regions are the mental distance of people. In our opin- much less presented in national TV (in rela- ion, he does not take into account enough the tion to their population numbers) than the fact that Silesia is more urban than Moravia Bohemian ones (Figure 3). which could also play a role in the conditions Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the of peripherality. main reason is a discrimination of Moravian From an urban geographical point of regions. Individual regions are usually pre- view, two diff erent sett lement systems can sented as regions – not as parts of Bohemia, be identified in Czechia: the centralistic Moravia or Silesia. The frequency of the con- Bohemian system surrounded by a ring of tributions depends on cultural and economic mountains and the transitional and polycen- activities as well as on the social conditions of tric Moravian urban system. The dominant individual regions. In this respect the position of Prague, its economic power, and plays the most outstanding role. 20 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

River and River basins. Originally, it was covered by a border forests. The border- land between Bohemia and Moravia belongs to the Czech inner periphery. According to Musil, J. and Müller, J. (2008) inner periph- eries can be generally defi ned as territories that are not economically expanding, are losing population, are demographically ageing, have Fig. 3. Linear regression model expressing relations among distances, populations and the number of con- lower socio-economic status, have worse techni- tributions per capita for all NUTS 3 regions (Prague cal and social infrastructure compared to that in and Central Bohemia united). y = -0.0102x + 7.21; other parts of the country, are less accessible, have R2 = 0.6033. Source: Sucháček, J. et al. 2013. older housing stock, and are experiencing specifi c exclusion-related social problems. The issue of historical lands is probably It is more or less true for the majority perceived diff erently from the Bohemian and of border sections between Bohemia and Moravian side (similarly as the perception Moravia and for the western part of the of from the Czech and the Moravian-Silesian borderland. The situa- Slovak side). On the one hand, for tion is supported by the fact that the border- (who feel themselves as the leading power line leads through the highland terrain far in the country) the problem does not exist from the regional centres. The weakest re- and if so, it is perceived as a decentralising gional centre of (Vysočina – Highland separatist tendency. On the other hand, in Region) is the only exception, being situated Moravia, the issue is understood in diff er- just on the borderline. The eastern part of the ent ways, sometimes as an ethnic problem, Moravian-Silesian borderland has diff erent another time as a regional problem or cul- conditions. It is situated in a relatively urban- tural diff erence. Moreover, Moravia (unlike ised area not far from the Basin – the Bohemia) features greater ethnic diversity. third largest regional centre in Czechia. Chromý, P. et al. (2004) tried to investigate In our research ethnicity declarations regional identity in Czechia. They conclud- of local residents in 199 communes in the ed that a visible dichotomy exists between Bohemian-Moravian borderland were ana- the “traditional” Moravia and the “modern, lysed (103 in the historical Bohemia, 96 in quickly changing” Bohemia. They came to the Moravia). Problem arose from the fact that the conclusion that traditional historical regions has the same word “český” for persist long in the mind of people. However, both meanings – Czech and Bohemian. Thus, it does not seem that the same would apply it is not clear whether respondents declared for the borderline itself (depending on the themselves Czechs in terms of nationality, or situation of individual sections of the bor- Bohemians or Moravian in terms of ethnicity der). To put it short, the centres of histori- in the population censuses of 1991 and 2011 cal regions are clear, while the borderline is as shown in Table 1 (share of the two ethnici- fuzzy. In reality, the borderline is oft en equat- ties decreased because ca. 25% of inhabitants ed with administrative boundaries. did not declare any ethnicity in 2011). It is clear that the mixing of terms of the Czech/Bohemian nationality and ethnicity Mental manifestation of borders between does not allow operating with the shares of the Czech historical lands individual ethnicities. However, it is more or less clear that although the ratio of Moravian The border between Bohemia and Moravia ethnicity is higher on the Moravian side of has partly natural character. It more or less the border, its share has decreased during respects the limits between the Labe () the last two decades. Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25. 21

Table 2 shows the situation in detail in se- of random sampling among respondents lected communes just on the border. All the between 20 and 80 years old with second- communes are originally Moravian towns ary or tertiary education was conducted. We located outside of typical Moravian adminis- thought that these people could have some trative regions or just on the borderline. Only geographical and historical knowledge in- one of them (Jevíčko) shows a clear tendency cluding the Bohemian-Moravian relations. to be affi liated with Moravia. We received altogether 49 responses where It can be concluded that not only the share only a small part of the answers was correct. of Moravians decreased by 2011 in compari- Mistakes were made partly in cases where son with 1991 (see Table 3), but the att ention historical Moravian towns are situated in re- paid to the issue of ethnicity has also become gions falling more to Bohemia. In addition, much less in the Bohemian-Moravian border- geographical knowledge was poor because land. Nevertheless, since the Czech popula- the knowledge of people depends very much tion and the Czech language do not diff er be- on the size of the individual towns and dis- tween nationality and ethnicity, it is diffi cult tance from respondents’ home. to formulate robust conclusions concerning As a next step, members of the Voluntary regional identity. Associations of Communes were checked. Regarding the fact that the administrative Under Czech conditions, small (200–500 inhab- structure of Czechia does not respect the tra- itants) and very small (under 200 inhabitants) ditional border between historical lands, the municipalities participate in such associations question concerning the affi liation of 51 se- very frequently, especially in the peripheral lected towns to Bohemia or Moravia was put areas, including the Bohemian-Moravian fron- forward (of them, 3 towns are situated just tier zone. The question was whether the asso- on the borderline – partly in Bohemia, partly ciations created within this process respect ad- in Moravia) and a survey using the method ministrative or historical borders. Altogether

Table 1. Ratio of people declaring Bohemian and Moravian ethnicities on the Bohemian-Moravian borderland in the 1991 and 2011 censuses

Total population, Bohemian Moravian Communes person person % person % 1991 Bohemian 74,491 70,670 94.9 2,563 3.4 Moravian 154,410 132,885 86.1 14,837 11.8 2011 Bohemian 77,247 53,348 69.1 644 0.8 Moravian 148,737 98,905 66.5 9,360 5.0 Source: The Czech Statistical Offi ce, Prague.

Table 2. Ratio of people declaring Bohemian and Moravian ethnicities in some Moravian towns in the 1991 census

Total population, Bohemian Moravian Town person person % person % Dačice 7,970 6,363 79.8 1,502 18.8 Slavonice 2,543 2,328 89.0 213 8.1 Jihlava 50,439 48,007 91.9 2,423 4.4 Svitavy 16,860 15,752 90.3 1,107 6.3 Jevíčko 2,615 1,490 55.4 1,123 41.8 Moravská Třebová 11,700 8,912 73.8 2,756 23.1 Žďár nad Sázavou 25,198 20,439 79.8 4,755 18.6 Source: The Czech Statistical Offi ce, Prague. 22 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

Table 3. Ratio of people declaring Bohemian and Moravian ethnicities in some Moravian towns in the 2011 census

Total population, Bohemian Moravian Town person person % person % Dačice 7,492 5,388 71.9 153 2.0 Slavonice 2,455 1,533 62.4 25 1.0 Jihlava 50,075 35,495 70.9 737 1.5 Svitavy 16,670 11,821 70.9 404 2.4 Jevíčko 2,886 1,737 60.2 324 11.2 Moravská Třebová 10.543 6,669 43.3 941 8.9 Žďár nad Sázavou 22,328 15,300 68.5 1,364 6.1 Source: The Czech Statistical Offi ce, Prague.

27 associations were checked. In the vast ma- Bohemia, Moravia or Silesia has gradually jority of the cases, the associations prefer to declined in Czechia. People do not doubt that respect district borders (although districts are these historical lands exist, they are able to de- only of statistical importance since 2003) also fi ne their core territories and they have some when the district border is diff erent from the imaginations about diff erences in language historical one. It is understandable: the col- or some habits, but they are not certain about laboration across the administrative border their borderlines. In spite of this, some enthu- would be probably more complicated. On the siasts try to assemble boards, characterizing other hand, the historical borders were crossed former borderlines in certain border sections. only in fi ve cases. We do not suppose that the Moravian or Silesian ethnicity means a creation of a special Moravian ethnicity at the expense of Czechs Discussion: Do historical lands have some (or penetration of from to importance today? the Czech territory). The Moravians and Silesians are no minorities in their own terri- The European Union should be a political tory. If the declaration of Moravian or Silesian body (re)establishing historical borders. The in the population census means a creation of process has two sides: a top-down approach a new ethnicity, the decrease of Moravians is necessary in the case of public adminis- and Silesians between the censuses should tration. Everyday practices of local people not be so signifi cant. We believe that such should also be taken into account. Forming statements meant mainly the expression of voluntary associations of municipalities man- regional identity and a requirement of deeper ifests a bott om-up approach. It is interesting subsidiarity at the regional level in response that association crossing the state borders to the centralism of Prague. (euro-regions) developed relatively inten- Iščuk, R. (2011) maintains that Moravian sively whereas association crossing the re- identity is declining at the present time. gional borders are very rare. The reason lays Nevertheless, he is of the opinion that re- in fi nancial issues. Whereas euro-regions are gional politics of the European Union should fi nancially supported by the EU, the chances provide new impulses to the Moravian issue of associations do not increase in the case of by leaving the centralizing tendencies and cross-regional purposes. asking for new regional identities. He sees Due to the abandonment of the historical three possible options for the future develop- division of the state in 1949, changes in so- ment: (1) option of the – a change of the cial and cultural values of people as well as regional principle into the ethnic one; (2) the the transformation of the educational system European option – weakening the nation-states (i.e. less importance of regional specialties), and strengthening the regions; or (3) the ho- the awareness of the historical affi liation to mogeneous option – leaving the European ideas Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25. 23

and returning to the nation-states. Together is not able to organise the whole territory of with the author, we prefer the 2nd option. the region – large parts of it gravitate in real- In this connection, let us put a legitimate ques- ity to neighbouring Bohemian and Moravian tion: Would the restauration and preservation of regional centres: Brno, České Budějovice, the Moravian (and Bohemian, possibly Silesian) . However, the region connecting identity be really an engine for some regional two peripheries is strangely not the most development? Semian, M. and Chromý, P. (2014) problematic one within Czechia. Although mention diff erent types of regional identity in objective conditions are poor, probably relation to regional development: the social capital of people living there for – regional identity as a successful driver in re- ages caused that present indicators rank the gional development (which is realized mostly Highland with the prospective areas. in the fi eld of tourism development and/or as Jihlava is a historical royal mining town, a support of collaboration among actors); the centre of which is situated in Moravia. – regional identity as an unsuccessful driver However, some suburbs and a big part in regional development (especially in cases of its catchment area belong to Bohemia. when the identity is directed to visitors or Restoration of the historical border would newcomers – not to permanent residents); interrupt relatively fi rm relations within the – regional identity as a barrier to regional micro-region of Jihlava. But if it is the only development (when the identity is directed obstacle, it should be solved: either to keep inwards the community and does not al- the historical border or to keep the micro- low a penetration of new ideas). region of Jihlava and affiliate it either to It follows that if the Moravian or Bohemian Bohemia or to Moravia. A similar situation identity should be successful, diff erences must (at a smaller scale) can be found for example not be overemphasised. Regional identity in the micro-region of Žďár nad Sázavou. should be the identity within the Europe of The solution could be similar. regions rather than against the Europe of re- The decision is a matt er of political will. gions. It has to keep particularities but must be The return to the historical division would also opened to new ideas at the same time. mean some reduction of the power of Prague With which territorial units does Czechia as a centre for 14 small regions. However, want to join such an idea? With the whole if the European politics is directed towards country? With small regions? With some the limitation of the power of nation-states statistical units (NUTS 2) without their own and towards increasing autonomy of regions, identity, self-government or territorial logic? some decisions will be necessary. The historical lands are large enough for Disagreement could also come from the the competition among historical European other side. Whereas Bohemia is a central- regions; they have long historical roots, con- ized, ethnically homogeneous land with the tain autonomous sett lement systems. The prominent centre in Prague, Moravia is dif- question is whether it is not too late to return ferent. The land consists of more ethnologi- regional identity to their inhabitants. cally diff erent parts like Moravian Slovakia, If so, the borderlines should be defi ned Wallachia, Horácko, Haná, Lachia, Moravian newly. There should be only one diffi cult Silesia etc. Will the inhabitants of all these problem to solve: the NUTS 3 region of parts agree with the creation of a unifi ed Vysočina (Highland). The region has been land? And which city should be the capital? created in the territory of the Bohemian- Olomouc, Brno and Znojmo were the fi rst Moravian Highland as an area unifying pe- historical competitors for this position. Later, ripheral parts of both Bohemia and Moravia. Olomouc as a seat of the Moravian archbish- Its centre Jihlava is the weakest centre among op gained the role, which was lost in the 17th regional capitals ( is in similar century in favour of Brno. Later, with the position in many sense). The city of Jihlava increasing importance of heavy industry, 24 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

Ostrava grew as a competitor of Brno. At Slovaks, Wallachians etc. It is typical for the the present time, Olomouc has fallen to the regionalisation of such groups that the core level of middle-sized city and Ostrava in the of their territory is generally known but marginal position fi ghts with structural and the borders are fuzzy. It follows that when environmental problems. It seems that Brno regional identity is not refl ected in the ad- with quaternary functions is a clear Moravian ministrative division of the country, it loses centre. But will other cities respect this situa- the strict delimitation by borders in the geo- tion? There are many unclear aspects in this graphical sense, although the awareness of regard. It does not mean, however, that it identity sustains or even increases. makes no sense to think about them. Utilisation of historical lands for European Within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, regionalisation is another issue. There are the administrative division according to his- clear evidences that subnational or regional torical lands was no problem. It was probably scales have become much more important as due to the fact that the empire was a multi-na- a locus for social and political life over the last tional state. The First Czechoslovak Republic 30–40 years (Jeffery, C. 2014). Nevertheless, (1918–1938) kept the historical lands too – al- it is hardly possible without a corresponding though it originated as a nation-state (not regional government. Czechia is one of the taking into account relations between Czechs few countries, which is actually not divided and Slovaks and the German problem). The into historical regions with long-term identi- abolition of historical lands could be linked to ties. Administrative regions, the delimitation the rise of the nation-state and hard central- of which changes every 20 years are not able ism of the post-war Czechoslovakia. Does the to play such a role. European Union represent a chance for the If we think about the Europe of Regions, return to the historical identity? historical lands seem to be optimum regions concerning their size, historical development and cultural features. Further research should Conclusions be focused on the Bohemian/Moravian issue as a problem of regional division based on To answer the research question, we can con- historical roots – rather than as a problem of clude as follows: there is no doubt that the Moravian nationality. perception of historical regional identity is gradually decreasing. In contrast with some Acknowledgement: The work took advantage of the other cases like the Basque country, Catalo- long-term conceptual development support from the Institute of Geonics, Czech Academy of Sciences Nr. nia, Scotland, Wallonia/Flanders etc., Mora- RVO: 68145535 vians are interested neither in the separation from Bohemia nor in some level of political autonomy. The diff erences are understood REFERENCES rather as cultural modifi cations in terms of dialects, customs, folk culture etc. Eff orts Applegate, C. 1999. A Europe of regions: Refl ection were directed rather to the unifi cation of his- of historiography of sub-national places in mod- torical lands – similarly as e.g. in Britt any. We ern times. The American Historical Review 104. (4): can also conclude that the Bohemian/Mora- 1157–1182. vian issue is not a problem of nationality. Chromý, P. and Janů, H. 2003. Regional identity, acti- However, awareness about Moravia vation of territorial communities and the potential of the development of peripheral regions. Acta among people exists and it does not seem Universitatis Carolinae Geographica 37. (1): 105–117. to be weakening. Its centre of gravity moves Chromý, P., Kučerová, S. and Kučera, Z. 2004. from the ethnic and regional concept to the Regional identity, contemporary and historical cultural one – similarly like earlier in the regions and the issue of relict borders – the case of case of ethnographic groups, e.g. Moravian Czechia. Region and Regionalism 9. (2): 9–19. Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25. 25

Daněk, P. 1993. Moravian and Silesian nationalities: Paasi, A. 2003. Region and place: Regional identity A new phenomenon on the ethnic map of the in question. Progress in Human Geography 27. (4): ? GeoJournal 30. (3): 249–254. Doi: 475–485. 10.1080/00291951.2014.961540. Paasi, A. 2009. The resurgence of the ‘Region’ and Fichtner, U. 2006. Architektur grenzübergreifender ‘Regional Identity’: theoretical perspectives and Kooperation und raumbezogene Identität am süd- empirical observations on regional dynamics in lichen Oberrhein. Europa Regional 14. (3): 102–116. Europe. Review of International Studies 35. (S1): htt p://www.cepsr.com/clanek.php?%20ID=37. 121–146. Iščuk, R. 2011. Moravská identita a její nové dimenze. Painter, J. 2002. Multilevel citizenship, identity and Antropowebzin 11. (1): 74–81. regions in contemporary Europe. In Transnational Jeffery, C. 2014. Introduction: Regional Public democracy. Political spaces and border crossings. Ed.: Att itudes beyond Methodological Nationalism. In Anderson, J. London, Routledge, 93–110. Citizenship aft er the Nation State. Eds.: Henderson, Pileček, J. and Jančák, V. 2010. Je možné měřit so- A., Jeffery, C. and Wincott, D. London, Palgrave ciální kapitál? Analýza územní diferenciace okresů Macmillan, 1–30. Česka. Geografi e 115. (1): 78–95. Keating, M. 1998. The New Regionalism in Western Sedlacek, S., Kurka, B. and Maier, G. 2009. Regional Europe: Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. identity: a key to overcome structural weaknesses Northampton, Edward Elgar, 242 p. in peripheral rural regions? European Countryside Lundén, T. and Zalamans, D. 2001. Local co-opera- 1. (4): 180–201. tion, ethnic diversity and state territoriality – The Šedo, J. 2002. Postavení Moravy dle Rokkanova mod- case of Haparanda and Tornio on the Sweden– elu centrum – periferie. Central European Political Finland border. GeoJournal 54. (1): 33–42. Studies Review 4. (4): Mareš, M. 2002. Evropská politika moravistických Semian, M. and Chromý, P. 2014. Regional identity as organizací. Central European Political Studies Review a driver or a barrier in the process of regional devel- 4. (4): htt p://www.cepsr.com/clanek.php?ID=24 opment: A comparison of selected European experi- Musil, J. and Müller, J. 2008. Inner peripheries in ence. Norsk Geografi sk Tij dskrift 68. (5): 263–270. the Czech Republic as a form of social exclusion. In Šerý, M. and Šimáček, P. 2012. Perception of the Space and historical time as dimensions of social change. historical border between Moravia and Silesia by Ed.: Musil, J. Prague, , 75–92. residents of the Jeseník area as a partial aspect of Neumann, I.B. 1999. Uses of the other. “The East” in their regional identity (Czech Republic). Moravian European identity formation. Manchester, Manchester Geographical Reports 20. (2): 36–46. University Press, 281 p. Siwek, T. 2006. Czech Silesia: A periphery of the Czech Newman, D. 2006. The lines that continue to separate state. Europa XXI 15. 145–150. us: borders in our “borderless” world. Progress in Siwek, T. 2012. Inner divisions of the Czech Republic. Human Geography 30. (2): 146–161. Geographia Polonica 85. (1): 23–31. Odehnal, J. and Šerý, M. 2012. Regional identity and Siwek, T. and Bogdová, K. 2007. Czech cultural-histori- its refl ection in Czech human geography. Dela 38. cal regions in the minds of their inhabitants. Czech 25–37. Sociological Review 43. (5): 1039–1053. Paasi, A. 1986. The institutionalisation of regions: a Sucháček, J., Seďa, P. and Friedrich, V. 2013. Regions theoretical framework for understanding the emer- and media from quantitative and qualitative gence of regions and the constitution of regional perspectives: the case of Czech Republic. Acta identity. Fennia 164. (1): 105–146. Universitatis agriculturae and silviculturae Mendeliana Paasi, A. 2001. Europe as a social process and discourse. Brunensis 61. (7): 2811–2819. Considerations of place, boundaries and identity. Toušek, V., Ších, P. and Vašíček, P. 1991. Zemská European Urban and Regional Studies 8. (7): 7–28. mezi Čechami a Moravou. Sborník České Paasi, A. 2002. Bounded spaces in the mobile World: geografi cké společnosti 96. (1): 45–48. Deconstructing “regional identity”. Tij dschrift voor economische en sociale geografi e 93. (2): 137–148. 26 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 15–25.

Minsk and Budapest, the two capital cities

Edited by

László Jeney and Dávid Karácsonyi

Department of Economic Geography and Futures Studies, Corvinus University of Budapest; Geographical Institute RCAES HAS; Faculty of Geography, Belarusian State University; Ins- titute for Nature Management, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus

Budapest, 2015. 194 p.

While Budapest used to be the bridge between the West and East in , Minsk seems to be in a similar role between the Russian and the EU–Polish infl uence zones. It means that both capitals are situated on the frontiers between the Euro-Atlantic and the Euro-Asian macro regions. Besides their situations, their simi- larity in size renders the comparison and the cooperation obvious to proceed. This book is based on the mutual co-operation of Hungarian and Belarussian geographers and gives a scientifi c outlook not only on the socio-economic develop- ment of the two cities but on the urban climate, environment and ecology as well. Hungarian authors of the book introduce Budapest as a Central European metropo- lis with its historical trajectories and the results of the post-socialist transformation. They also demonstrate the main features of large housing estates and the results of their rehabilitation. Authors from Belarus show the major issues of spatial structure planning of Minsk in a similar context, de- scribing the past and the present changes taking place in the spatial structure of the metropolis. The integrated assessment of the state of urban environment in Minsk is examined also focusing on the ecological frame of the environmental planning in ur- ban agglomerations. The volume serves as a good starting point of a fruitful co-opera- tion between Belarussian and Hungarian geographers dealing with a social and physical urban environment, the state of which deserves extra att ention especially in East Central and .

Copies are available: Library, Geographical Institute of RCAES HAS, H-1112 Budapest, Budaörsi u. 44. E-mail: magyar.arpad@csfk .mta.hu